POST II - The true nature of the hierarchies.
As with power, in general we all have a misconception about hierarchies. This misconception basically maintain that all hierarchies involve a ranking or dominating judgment that oppresses other values and the individuals who hold them (hierarchies are a “hegemonic domination that marginalizes differential values”). But this conception of hierarchy comes from a pathological scheme of hierarchy, one that easily becomes a despotism. We must concentrate on the positive notion of hierarchy as the organizing principle of wholeness and learn how to implement the right schemes of hierarchies that are preventing despotism (domination). The following is a summary from the Ken Wilber 's book “Sex, Ecology, Spirituality":
Holons, normal hierarchies and holarchies
As used in modern psychology, evolutionary theory, and systems theory, a hierarchy is simply a ranking of orders of events according to their holistic capacity. In any developmental sequence, what is whole at one stage becomes a part of a larger whole at the next stage. A letter is part of a whole word, which is part of a whole sentence, which is part of a whole paragraph, and so on.
Arthur Koestler coined the term holon to refer to that which, being a whole in one context, is simultaneously a part in another. With reference to the phrase “the bark of a dog,” for example, the word “bark” is a whole with reference to its individual letters, but a part with reference to the phrase itself. And the whole (or the context) can determine the meaning and function of a part – the meaning of bark is different in the phrases “the bark of a dog” and “the bark of a tree.” The whole, in other words, is more than the sum of its parts, and that whole can influence and determine, in many cases, the function of its parts (and that whole itself is, of course, simultaneously a part of some other whole; I will return to this in a moment). Normal hierarchy, then, is simply an order of increasing holons, representing an increase in wholeness and integrative capacity – atoms to molecules to cells, for example. And these orders could be seen as ranked because each successive order is more inclusive and more encompassing and in that sense “higher”.
It is for all these reasons that Koestler, after noting that all hierarchies are composed of holons, or increasing orders of wholeness, pointed out that the correct word for “hierarchy” is actually holarchy.
Wholeness and connectedness
To be a part of a larger whole means that the whole supplies a principle (or some sort of glue) not found in the isolated parts alone, and this principle allows the parts to join, to link together, to have something in common, to be connected, in ways that they simply could not be on their own. And hierarchy is the basic organizing principle of wholeness. You cannot have wholeness without hierarchy because unless you organize the parts into a larger whole whose glue is a principle higher or deeper than the parts possess alone – unless you do that, then you have heaps, not wholes. You have strands, but never a web. Even if the whole is a mutual interaction of parts, the wholeness cannot be on the same level as the partness or it would itself be merely another part, not a whole capable of embracing and integrating each and every part. Hierarchy, then, converts heaps into wholes, disjointed fragments into networks of mutual interaction. When it is said that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts,” the “greater” means “hierarchy.” It doesn’t mean fascist domination; it means a higher (or deeper) commonality that joins isolated strands into an actual web, that joins molecules into a cell, or cells into an organism.
Asymmetry in hierarchies
Hierarchy is asymmetrical because the process of increasing wholeness does not occur in the reverse. Acorns grow into oaks, but not vice versa. There are first letters, then words, then sentences, then paragraphs, but not vice versa. Atoms join into molecules, but not vice versa. And that “not vice versa” constitutes an unavoidable hierarchy or ranking or asymmetrical order of increasing wholeness. All developmental and evolutionary sequences that we are aware of proceed by hierarchization, or by orders of increasing holism – molecules to cells to organs to organ systems to organisms to societies of organisms, for example. In cognitive development, we find awareness expanding from simple images, which represent only one thing or event, to symbols and concepts which represent whole groups or classes of things and events, to rules which organize and integrate numerous classes and groups into entire networks. In moral development we find a reasoning that moves from the isolated subject to a group or tribe of related subjects, to an entire network of groups beyond any isolated element. And so on. This growth in wholeness occurs in stages, and stages, of course, are ranked in both a logical and chronological order. The more holistic patterns appear later in development because they have to await the emergence of the parts that they will then integrate or unify, just as whole sentences emerge only after whole words.
In any developmental or growth sequence, as a more encompassing stage or holon emerges, it includes the capacities and patterns and functions of the previous stage (i.e., of the previous holons), and then adds its own unique (and more encompassing) capacities. In that sense, and that sense only, can the new and more encompassing holon be said to be “higher” or “deeper.” Organisms include cells, which include molecules, which include atoms (but not vice versa). Thus, whatever the important value of the previous stage, the new stage has that enfolded in its own makeup, plus something extra (more integrative capacity, for example), and that “something extra” means “extra value” relative to the previous (and less encompassing) stage. And this extra value always means more holistic, or capable of a wider response.
Hierarchy, control and heterarchy
Some hierarchies do involve a type of control network. As Roger Sperry points out, the lower levels (which means, less holistic levels) can influence the upper (or more holistic) levels, through what he calls “upward causation.” But just as important, he reminds us, the higher levels can exert a powerful influence or control on the lower levels – so-called “downward causation.” For example, when you decide to move your arm, all the atoms and molecules and cells in your arm move with it – an instance of downward causation.
Now, within a given level of any hierarchical pattern, the elements of that level operate by heterarchy. That is, no one element seems to be especially more important or more dominant, and each contributes more or less equally to the health of the whole level. But a higher-order whole, of which this lower-order whole is a part, can exert an overriding influence on each of its components. Again, when you decide to move your arm, your mind – a higher-order holistic organization – exerts influence over all the cells in your arm, which are lower-order wholes, but not vice versa: a cell in your arm cannot decide to move the whole arm – the tail does not wag the dog.
And here is completed a brief description of the hierarchy in its proper sense, positively, as a holarchy that allows the sequential or stagelike unfolding of larger networks of increasing wholeness, with the larger or wider wholes being able to exert influence over the lower-order wholes, i.e. to grow in levels of higher complexity that that allow behaviors and functions that are not possible in the previous level of growing. A holarchy where within each level, heterarchy; between each level, hierarchy; and where both both are complementary and essential to each other for a healthy system.
Pathological hierarchies and heterarchies
In a hierarchy a higher-order whole is able to exert influence over the lower-order wholes. And as natural, desirable, and unavoidable as that is, it is possible to see how holarchies can go pathological. If the higher levels can exert influence over the lower levels, they can also overdominate or even repress and alienate the lower levels. And that leads to a host of pathological difficulties, in both the individual and society at large. So, in a pathological hierarchy, one holon assumes agentic dominance to the detriment of all. This holon doesn’t assume it is both a whole and a part, it assumes it is the whole, period.
It is precisely because the world is arranged holarchically, precisely because it contains fields within fields within fields, that things can go so profoundly wrong, that a disruption or pathology in one field can reverberate throughout an entire system. And the cure for this pathology, in all systems, is essentially the same: rooting out the pathological holons so that the holarchy itself can return to harmony. The cure does not consist in getting rid of holarchy per se, since, even if that were possible, it would simply result in a uniform, one-dimensional flatland of no value distinctions at all. Rather, the cure of any diseased system consists in rooting out any holons that have usurped their position in the overall system by abusing their power of upward or downward causation. This is exactly the cure we see at work in psychoanalysis (shadow holons refuse integration), critical social theory (ideological holons distort open communication), democratic revolutions (monarchical or fascist holons oppress the body politic), medical science interventions (cancerous holons invade a benign system), radical feminist critiques (patriarchal holons dominate the public sphere), and so on. It is not getting rid of holarchy per se, but arresting (and integrating) the arrogant holons. Thus, a normal hierarchy, or the holism between levels, goes pathological when there is a breakdown between levels and a particular holon assumes a repressive, oppressive, arrogant role of dominance over other holons (whether in individual or social development).
But not only are there pathological or dominator hierarchies, there are pathological or dominator heterarchies. In a normal heterarchy, which is holism within any level, goes pathological when there is a blurring or fusion of that level with its environment: a particular holon doesn’t stand out too much, it blends in too much; it doesn’t arrogate itself above others, it loses itself in others – and all distinctions, of value or identity, are lost (the individual holon finds its value and identity only through others). In pathological heterarchy, individual holons lose their distinctive value and identity in a communal fusion and meltdown. This holon doesn’t assume it is both a whole and a part, it assumes it is a part, period. Thus, pathological heterarchy means not union but fusion; not integration but indissociation; not relating but dissolving. All values become equalized and homogenized in a flatland devoid of individual values or identities; nothing can be said to be deeper or higher or better in any meaningful sense; all values vanish into a herd mentality of the bland leading the bland.
Whereas pathological hierarchy is a type of ontological fascism (with the one dominating the many), pathological heterarchy is a type of ontological totalitarianism (with the many dominating the one).
So, as we saw, hierarchies are not bad and in fact is the only way we are able to organize things and ourselves to achieve complex behaviors and functions. The problem resides in the proper balance between hierarchies and heterarchies, and the proper design of the schemes of hierarchies that avoid dominant holons.
